The way I see it, even after having a indepth phone convo with BHNTechXpert, is that I pay for the programing, I should be able to do what I want with it, if I want to copy it to my comp or iphone, that should be my right as I paid for it.

Click to expand...

On Brighthouse or Time Warner? LOL that's funny, you're a day late on April Fools.

Here is my fear with respect to CVP-2... we might be saddled by our subscription TV providers UI.

Click to expand...

Yep this gives them the ability to control the user experience, which is what they tried and failed to do with tru2way. The question will be whether it's optional or mandatory, and Tivo won't go with the latter.

I keep hoping for the day to come that all programs (except possibly live sports) are on demand, there aren't any networks, or channels, or anything of that ilk. Just the writers and producers free at last from interference by network executives and meddling advertisers.

The advertisers would still exists, of course, but instead of paying networks, they pay viewers in the form of credits the viewers could then use to pay for the on demand programs they want to watch. No advertiser needs to worry about sponsoring offensive shows, since they are now simply sponsoring viewers, not shows.

That's an interesting idea. Have all content be PPV but allow people to earn credits toward those PPV shows by watching commercials.

Although it seems ripe for manipulation. I mean what's to stop someone from setting something up to automate commercial watching while they're asleep and then using the resulting credits to watch shows for free? Although I guess that's basically what us DVR users are doing now. We're using technology to manipulate the system and get something for free without paying our dues.

That's an interesting idea. Have all content be PPV but allow people to earn credits toward those PPV shows by watching commercials.

Although it seems ripe for manipulation. I mean what's to stop someone from setting something up to automate commercial watching while they're asleep and then using the resulting credits to watch shows for free? Although I guess that's basically what us DVR users are doing now. We're using technology to manipulate the system and get something for free without paying our dues.

Click to expand...

In my opinion the Networks and advertisers killed their own system when they moved an hour show from being 52 minutes long to 42 minutes long. If anyone really believe that people without DVRs actually sit there and watch 18 minutes of commercials in an hour, then I have some great swamp land they can invest in. While I am not a fan of advertisements Hulu has it right the commercial breaks are short enough so you really can not do anything else so you end up watching them.

That's an interesting idea. Have all content be PPV but allow people to earn credits toward those PPV shows by watching commercials.

Although it seems ripe for manipulation. I mean what's to stop someone from setting something up to automate commercial watching while they're asleep and then using the resulting credits to watch shows for free? Although I guess that's basically what us DVR users are doing now. We're using technology to manipulate the system and get something for free without paying our dues.

Click to expand...

I suspect ads would have to become interactive. Maybe role playing games where your objective is to buy a new car and use it to get lunch at a fast food place then go to the mall .

Or maybe you have to take a quiz at the end of your infomercial and your score is used to decide how many credits you get...

Yep this gives them the ability to control the user experience, which is what they tried and failed to do with tru2way. The question will be whether it's optional or mandatory, and Tivo won't go with the latter.

Click to expand...

I not worried about having the provider's interface. It still would be possible to place a device between the gateway and the AV network. In our case it would be Tivo. The tivo would request tuners from the gateway and most likely would be able to pick and chose other gateway services to provide. Tivo would wrap this in its own interface which would then provided the content to devices on the AV network.

I not worried about having the provider's interface. It still would be possible to place a device between the gateway and the AV network. In our case it would be Tivo. The tivo would request tuners from the gateway and most likely would be able to pick and chose other gateway services to provide. Tivo would wrap this in its own interface which would then provided the content to devices on the AV network.

Click to expand...

The concern is that ture2way was suppose to allow the same thing, but then the providers started insisting that they get total control over the UI. So there is a possibility the providers will reject this standard unless they have the option to force their UI on every device.

The concern is that ture2way was suppose to allow the same thing, but then the providers started insisting that they get total control over the UI. So there is a possibility the providers will reject this standard unless they have the option to force their UI on every device.

Click to expand...

I understand the concern and hope the providers do not try to assert themselves into the UI for 3rd party components. However, knowing that the AllVid spec request by the FCC was intended for an open spec and that CVP-2 is the industries response to the request, I believe the probability of the providers controlling the UI 3rd party components is low. Unfortunately, its not zero.

I keep hoping for the day to come that all programs (except possibly live sports) are on demand, there aren't any networks, or channels, or anything of that ilk. Just the writers and producers free at last from interference by network executives and meddling advertisers.

The advertisers would still exists, of course, but instead of paying networks, they pay viewers in the form of credits the viewers could then use to pay for the on demand programs they want to watch. No advertiser needs to worry about sponsoring offensive shows, since they are now simply sponsoring viewers, not shows.

If only I could figure out how to get there from here .

Click to expand...

NO! That ads would be super targeted, like online ads. I don't want to see ads for some product I just bought for 3 weeks like I do online. I like seeing general interest ads that are targeted to the average person watching the show, not to ME. I'm not a tinfoil hat, I don't mind transmitting data to whoever wants to use it in a big data set, but I just find it annoying as hell to have the same ads over and over again like online.

I wish every provider would just license the real TiVo interface from TiVo, and then we wouldn't have this problem! Of course, that wouldn't get us actually owning the hardware...

Can you explain this in english to me please? I looked at it and was confused.

Click to expand...

It's related to the DLNA CVP-2 article posted earlier in this thread. It appears that DLNA will be the standard that MSOs need to comply with for their set-top boxes. This will theoretically allow a 3rd party "certified" retail box to connect to a cable provided box and receive video services.

I described it this way over on the investment board,

Essentially, the IP Output Rule requires all MSOs to enable "gateway" functionality on their boxes to allow 3rd party (i.e., retail) to access cable TV video services. It appears that we are going down the path of DLNA being the standards-based mechanism to get this done. If this is implemented properly, you would theoretically be able to get one gateway box from your cable operator and light-up any number of retail devices (e.g., Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire, XBox, ...) in your home with cable TV services. The big question is how consistently this will be implemented by the MSOs. The DLNA profiles allow things like hijacking of the 3rd party screen so essentially you might be forced to use the cable operators user interface to access their services. This is currently an option in the DLNA specification. Its really unclear how this will play out but it could be a step in the right direction for retail access to cable services. The question in my mind is how well will it work. This could be like MSO provided Tuning Adapters for Switched Digital Video (SDV) that are finally working well today many years after they were introduced. This new rule does nothing related to the CableCARD status quo at this point but I'm somewhat optimistic that the FCC's Media Burea's chief appeared to be on the side of TiVo in the most recent hearings in the US Senate.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Dan or some others can jump in here and explain it better than me.

In the latest exchange of comments to the FCC, the principal trade association of the U.S. Cable Industry aggressively attacks TiVo's stance on CableCARD. From a retail CableCARD user perspective, TiVo's stance IS in the consumers best interest. The NCTA is essentially arguing that the cable industry and MVPDs will innovate on their own to provide access to their member(s) signals on 3rd party devices. We've seen many examples where this isn't the case but they continue to argue the point.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (&#8220;NCTA&#8221 hereby replies to comments filed in response to Buckeye Cablevision, Inc.&#8217;s (&#8220;Buckeye&#8217;s&#8221 request for waiver of the &#8220;integration ban&#8221; in Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission&#8217;s Rules &#8211; the rule which requires cable operators to use separate security (e.g., CableCARDs) in their leased set-top boxes. While expressing sympathy for a smaller operator seeking to adopt more advanced technology, TiVo, Inc. (&#8220;TiVo&#8221 urges the Commission to block those advances. TiVo&#8217;s approach would impede innovation to the detriment of Buckeye&#8217;s customers, and should be rejected. The Commission should grant Buckeye&#8217;s waiver request.

Click to expand...

Today, the market is already delivering a wide variety of innovative video platforms and interfaces. As the Commission noted in its last Video Competition Report, &#8220;the CPE marketplace is more dynamic than it has ever been, offering consumers an unprecedented and growing list of choices to access video content.&#8221;20 Cable operators have been key actors in facilitating these marketplace developments by making their services available on a broad and growing array of consumer electronics devices. Numerous cable operators are delivering cable services to iOS and Android tablets and smartphones, PCs and Macs, and game consoles and other video devices, and that trend is accelerating to meet consumer demand for these options. The relative paucity of retail CableCARD devices and the cornucopia of other video devices on which consumers are enjoying cable programming is unequivocal testimony that allowing the marketplace to offer a diversity of approaches is far more successful than attempting to prescribe a uniform government-mandated technology.

It's obvious to everyone that Cablecard is a dead-end and a successor should be created. But that's where the devil lies because the MSOs all want to roll their own. Sadly, I believe that this will happen by default as they keep kicking the IP Output mandate down the road.

It's obvious to everyone that Cablecard is a dead-end and a successor should be created. But that's where the devil lies because the MSOs all want to roll their own. Sadly, I believe that this will happen by default as they keep kicking the IP Output mandate down the road.

Click to expand...

They are heading down the path that requires an MSO gateway leased device in every home complying with the IP Output rule. The gateway MSO device supports proprietary encryption on a provider-by-provider basis. Any 3rd party device will need to connect to the IP side of the device.